The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/10/2005 B A K E R S F I E L D Sue Benham, Chair David Couch Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson MEETING NOTICE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMI'I-rEE of the City Council- City of Bakersfield Monday, October 10, 2005 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor - City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Report and Committee recommendation regarding subdivision tree requirements for new single family homes and sidewalk design standards 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding vacation of "O" Street between Truxtun Avenue and 17th Street B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding planning, development and funding of community and regional parks, bike paths and trails 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT S:~JOHN~Council Committees\05Planning&Development~o&d 05 Oct 10 agen.doc DRAFT B A K E R S F I E L D /~ ~ ~--~.~.c_~- Sue Benham, Cha,r Staff: J~h-n W. Stin~o-n - David Couch For: Alan Tandy, City Manager Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMrR'EE MEETING Monday, September 12, 2005- 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference.Room - City Hall 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 1:02 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Sue Benham, Chair; and David Couch Absent: Councilmember Mike Maggard 2. ADOPT JULY 18, AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS Brian Todd, Building Industry Association of Kern County, stated that Planning Director Jim Movius had mention there was going to be a workshop on the hillside ordinance sometime soon and he wanted to know when and where it was going to take place. Assistant City Manager Stinson will get the information and inform Mr. Todd. Bruce Freeman, Castle-and Cooke, spoke regarding credit toward the required parkland for 1.5 to 2.5 acre pocket parks, which are smaller than the 6 to 10 acre threshold; for gated communities, giving developers 75% (or fair percentage) of the park development fee credits for 2.5 to 10 acre parks if the developer builds the park and the homeowners association maintains it; building higher density developments with smaller parks in the future as a way to keep home prices affordable due to the high cost of land; and expressed support of a separate fee for large regional parks so the park development fees collected for neighborhood parks will not be eroded. In response to a question from Committee Chair Benham, City Attorney Gennaro advised the Committee that discussion could continue based on a public statement with no action taken except the Committee's referral request to Council that the issues not already in Committee be referred to the Committee. Recreation and Parks Director Hoover agreed pocket parks improve communities, but expressed the need to build an adequate number of neighborhood parks ~arge enough for recreational amenities to serve the surrounding community. She was not Monday, September 12, 2005 Page 2 in favor of giving credit for park development fees to developers to build parkS in gated communities, as this would deplete the park funds necessary to build' and provide access to neighborhood parks for adjacent neighborhoods. Committee Member Couch stated he would like a referral back to the Committee to discuss future planning to provide regional parks in new developing areas. He suggested dividing the City into quadrants or sections and then plan how many regional parks are needed and the cost to build with facilities, whether that would be baseball, soccer or other recreation. To arrive at the fee per unit, take the cost to build the regional parks and set the fee based on how many houses are to be build. He suggested perhaps we should look at the current park standards and expressed there could be more pocket parks if regional parks are financed and built to.provide recreation to the surrounding communities. Development Services Director Grady provided a brief overview of a 2003 memorandum the Committee had reviewed previously with an outline for discussing existing General Plan policies and what the current ordinances contain regarding the different park types. The outline provided a comparison of the City's policies for the different park types in comparison to the national standard. Committee Member Couch requested a referral back to the Committee to discuss the bike path and a way to incentivize developers to bring an extension or spur into new developments. Committee Chair Benham requested to include new redevelopment areas to the bike path referral as well. Committee Chair Benham requested staff to prepare an administrative report with a request to Council to refer planning for regional parks and bike path extensions into new developments including new redevelopment to the Planning and Development Committee. Staff was also requested to bring this back to the Committee at its November 14th meeting and to notify NOR Recreation and Parks staff of the meeting. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding park standards for development agreements Committee Chair Benham explained when she referred this item, it was meant to have a broader scope, not just confined to development agreements. She had concerns the City does not have a policy to achieve pedestrian friendly, walkable communities that provide connection between open space, commercial and residential development. Currently developers can come in with wonderful presentations and graphic designs to show what they are offering and how it will look, but after the development is approved, developers could actually just do typical suburban style developments. DRAFT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, September 12, 2005 Page 3 Development Services Director Grady explained the City's development standards accommodate pedestrian friendly,' walkable communities, but unless we adopt design standards they are optional. City Manager Tandy explained there are mechanisms that occur through the subdivision process and the master planning for parks and recreation which afford the opportunity to influence the development. However, built in design standard policies to provide pedestrian friendly, walkable elements that are not optional could be achieved through changes to the subdivision ordinance. Committee Member Couch expressed pedestrian friendly, walkable communities is a broad term with different interpretations. He explained to him it should include the following: 1) provide connection from residential to commercial; 2) sidewalks being set back with a green space between the sidewalk and street; and 3) a proportional number of cul-de-sacs should have an opening to walk through so pedestrians do not have to walk extra long distances to get around the block walls. Committee Chair Benham requested staff to bring the subdivision ordinance back to the next Committee meeting, which is scheduled for October 10th. 5. COMMI'I-rEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:05 p.m. Attendance-staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Assistant City Manager John Stinson; Development Services Director Stan Grady; Public Works Director Raul Rojas; Planning Director Jim Movius; Recreation and Parks Director Dianne Hoover; and Park COnstruction and Facility Planner Ken Trone Attendance-others: Harry Love, Sierra Club; Brian Todd, Building Industry Association of Kern County; Bruce Freeman, Castle and Cooke; Jeff Leggio; Dave Dmohowski, Project Design Consultants cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers S:~JOHN~Council Committees\05Planning&Development~P&D 05 sep 12summary.doc ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT MEETING DATE: July 20, 2005 I AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar I ITEM NO: TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Development Services - Planning DEPARTMENT HEAD ~ CITY ATFORNEY DATE: July 12, 2005 CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Report from the Planning Commission regarding subdivision tree requirements for new single family homes and sidewalk design standards. (Citywide) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Planning Commission's report and forward to the Planning and Development Committee. BACKGROUND: On June 2, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted a report from their AD HOC Committee regarding subdivision tree requirements for new single-family homes and sidewalk design standards to promote more walkable neighborhoods. The report and recommendations from the Planning Commission concemed three items. First, to encourage walkable neighborhoods, require that developers install sidewalks with parkway stdps along the street (referred to as a standard sidewalk design). This would move pedestrians further off the street and allow placement of trees and other greenery between the street and sidewalk. This would become the required design for all local streets in residential areas. The recommendation also includes Planning Commission approval of deviations to that design. Secondly, the Commission recommends that developers of new homes install a minimum of two trees in the front yard. Tree species and location would be at the discretion of the builder and homeowner, and enforced only at the time of initial building occupancy. However, there would be no requirement to keep these trees if the present or future homeowners wish to change their landscape design. Lastly, the Commission recommended that the Parks Division make available a list of appropriate trees that can be planted in parkway strips to avoid undesirable species (ie. those that are too large, aggressive root systems, etc.). The list would be made available on the city's web site and through handouts. The Commission's report and recommendations are attached. Planning staff also presented these recommendations to the Development Standards Committee of the Building Industry Association before the Planning Commission took final action on the report. July 12, 2005, 11:37AM P:tPC Ad Hoc sidewalk ~'ee$ - Adrnkt Report. doc B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM June 2,2005 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission -- FROM: James D. Mowus, Planning D~rector ~',~.,/' ~- SUBJECT: Ad Hoc Planning and DevelopmentCommittee Recommendations Regarding Subdivision Tree Requirements and Sidewalk Design Standards. Early last year the Planning Commission appointed an Ad Hoc Committee to consider design issues for subdivisions pertaining to the streetscape. The Committee was comprised of Members Tragish (Chair), Lomas, and Blockley. On November 30, 2004, the Committee concluded their discussion and drafted their recommendations for Planning Commission consideration. On April 28, 2004, the Committee held an additional meeting to give opportunity to the Building Industry Association and residential developers to review and comment on the recommendations in this report. Although the time and date of the meeting, including specific notice and follow-up calls were made to accommodate these representatives, none attended the meeting. Therefore, the Committee finalized their recommendations and are forwarding this report to the full Planning Commission for review and action. DISCUSSION The Committee was interested in improving walkability in new residential neighborhoods by enhancing the visual streetscape with more trees and green space. They first focused on sidewalks. Sidewalks are required for all new housing developments along public streets. Public Works' normal design for sidewalks (referred to as "combination type sidewalk") is that they are placed next to the curb and street. As an option, a developer can request special consideration by the City Engineer to create a parkway next to the curb and then the sidewalk. This is called a "standard type sidewalk" design. The "standard type sidewalk" is found in the many older neighborhoods such as Westchester, Oleander, and Alta Vista, and has more recently been used in some of the new private gated communities. The "combination type sidewalk" is the typical design used for the last few decades and found in the majority of single-family subdivisions. The Committee recommended that the requested sidewalk design be switched to default to the "standard sidewalk type", and that the "combination type sidewalk" be requested as an exception. To promote more walking, this design would move the sidewalk and pedestrians away from the street and create a landscaped strip where a tree-lined streetscape could be encouraged. The Committee also recommended that Title 16 be amended to require Planning Commission approval for any sidewalk exceptions as part of the initial subdivision request. The second issue concerned landscaping and the desire that trees be required in the front yards of new single-family homes. The City currently requires trees along the street frontages of multiple-family, commercial, and industrial developments. Along single-family lot frontages, trees are not required though developers usually provide front yard landscaping on a voluntary basis. Therefore, to help create Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission June 2, 2005 Page 2 more shade and greenery within a new subdivision, the Committee recommended that at least two 15- gallon sized trees be required in the front yard of each lot before the initial occupancy of a home. Tree species and location in the front yard would be at the discretion of the developer and/or homeowner. However, if a homeowner replaced those trees or even removed them, there would be no penalty or violation. The Committee felt that the initial planting would encourage homeowners to keep them or redesign their front yards with other tree species further enhancing the streetscape. Lastly, the Committee requested the Parks Division look into publishing a tree list that would help people decide suitable tree species that they could plant in the parkway strip between the curb and sidewalk. Because this strip will vary in width, some tree species are not preferred due to their shape, size, root characteristics (i.e. lifting the sidewalk), etc., and since maintenance of those trees will be the responsibility of the homeowner, this list would help to lessen the likelihood of planting inappropriate trees. The Committee encouraged the posting of this list on the City's web site for easy access by the public and developers. RECOMMENDATIONS The Ad Hoc Planning and Development Committee recommends that the Planning Commission adopt this report and forward the recommendations to the City Council for their consideration: 1. Require that the "standard type sidewalk" design be the normal requirement for sidewalk installation along local residential streets and that the "combination type sidewalk" design be specifically requested as the deviation from that requirement. Recommend amending Title 16 to require Planning Commission approval for deviations to the sidewalk standard as part of the initial subdivision request. Also, since revisions would be necessary to the Public Works Subdivision Design Manual sheet requiring the standard sidewalk design, include reference to Section 17.08.175 of the Municipal Code regarding "clear sight vieW' for trees planted in the parkway. This reference is intended to help developers and homeowners that plant trees in the parkway to place them in areas that do not obstruct sight-line visibility for drivers. 2. Require that new single-family lots be required to have two trees in the front yard. The minimum tree size would be 15 gallons, tree species and location would be at the discretion of the developer and/or homeowner. This requirement would only be for the initial occupancy of the home and would not obligate the homeowner to keep them if other landscape designs were used. 3. Request the Parks Division to make available to the public through publication and posting on the City's web site, a list of appropriate trees that can be planted in parkways between the curb and sidewalk. The list would also include standards for planting, pruning, and general tree maintenance. P:\Memos~,D Hoc Plan Dev 5-11-05.doc ~b~mo O~led by f~ ~o o $1u~ ~ C/II 6nqm°~ ~foco sMII ~ fi~ lo ~'o~ ~..., COMBINATION TYPE ~,~ ~ ~o~ioe ~ s~i~ ~-7o/0 ' '- - SIDEWALK 5-&' mi~ in oU ofh~ Pones o~ Eng,oeo~ sid~olk shoo conform in dimension and locution fo those ~ j Of ~ firsf ~oring li~ Of t ~ ~ Dermal f~ ~d~olk co~t~i~ nod rec~- j ~ Public W~k$ o~ shoo occ~ octal I ~ vet/once tn finish. ~lor, ~ muter/al from I standard m'O require 0 sp~iol ~rmit -~-W~ O~ ~ foe Ofy C~iI. 5to~ord ~rb RoMe rod/us ~iofi~S ~m ~ ~O~of~ Shoo ~ ~ fo0 ~/oS~ oS s~rd ~ meon~i~ t~.~mitt~ by ~e ~irected by f~ ~ o~ro~iofe ~gn ~ovi~s of chopOr I~ city 6~io~ of f~ on.it/pul ~. '~ STANDARD TYPE I s ~,0. ,J v= . TYPICAL SECTION Oui/d~ for ~. remodeled, or o2pooOod ~ s~f torfb Jo Cbopfer I~. 40. S~fiofl ~. 40.010 of l~ 8obersHel~ Municipo/ Code shall p~viOe ~ STAnD, ED c~crefe ~tbS, Puffers nod s1~oI~ occotdl~g Oc~ber PO ~01 ~ tbi, ,,OriEntal ,rowing.. SIDEWALK Iinol opOr~ol ~0 ocr,pinaco ~ tN Cb/of CI~ OF BAKERSFIELD Ouil~i~ Io$~r for ~ fo f~ ~ildiog . BY VOLUNTEERS . . . - . SINCE 1994" ,, "..TKEE FOUNDATION . JU t~.2005 .. : · _" .' .O f K E K N . : C F L"-ITYOFBAKERS-IE-D.' . ·-. '-' PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~~ . ' u 5. 2005 . ,, ~ .. Mr. Ji~ Movius . , ~,.;=~ '. Planning DirectOr v.~.~., 'City of Bakersfield -. ~"~~~"~ 1715 Truxtun Avenue ~,-'~,='~,,~ Bakersfield, CA 93~0.1 · . ~.,~s,~,,~.~ . ·-Dear'Mr. MoviuS: -'a.,.,~..,w The Tree Fouhdation of,Kern recently was made aware of a' · ~,,~-~-~ landscaping recommendation' that is being eonsidered for e.~,.~,,,.~.,~, adoption' by the 'Planning CommisSion to be forwarded to the .. ',~.~.~~, City Council for ~eir approval. We are excited about 'the c~.~.,,.,,~ progress 15eing 'made in our .city in .regards to urban forestry . r,~,~,~,~. . :'.'- '"" ~.,, 'practices 'and 'this recommendation supports'our communi{y's · .. ~___~.~;_ c,=,.,,=. '. :desire' to see 'more tree~ in new developments. '. -,~~ -, 'However, in .light.of the fact that our ciiy has no u~an forester, · we would, like. to highlight a few 'concerns tha{ we have in c~,~e.~.~...~... . , · ~. respect to the proposal. ,, ' ' - - 'E,;=,~ ~" ;1. The ',!'standard ".-type 'sidewalk" ' change'is 'very. positive... ~="'~" However, we Would. like to hav~ the city r~commend the use .w~.~, - · of structural soils 'in the planter area of the sidewalk. · We """*" had'originally ~:eC°mmended this type of soil be referenced in ~ u,.. ,,=~ c=~ the Tree 'Technical ·Manual. , w. ~,.~.... Structural · .. . Soils. allow for greater root pene.tmtion and · · .-... -'- Io.ng~vity in trees:In sidewalk, lifting ,. withoUt the use of rOOt · ' _ show' that' ' structbral.' landscape appli.cati°ns ~ muni~:i,Palities'!n streets~.a J J6611325.6650 J 2'300 TRUXTUN AVENUE J- StJITE .2L07 BAKI · www. urbanf~est.org 2. Requiring two t~ees Should be a ·minimum standard, not .th~ requirement. The.number of.trees should be determined.by I.ot.size.. " Obviously,. larger lots may n~eed more trees. Als0.,, the ProPer size of the .. ' trees is not 15gallon. Nursery st~nda~s-have changed and gallon sizeis - no longer a tree 'measuremenL Trees that develqpers pui'chase should - al,so meet certair{ requirements in'terms of health, sfl'ucture and' current disease' ahd/or fungus manifestation. '[:his could be reference~ in the tree ' list. .. -. The requirement for occupancy and not obligating "the homeowner to keep them if other landscape designs Were used" seems in conflict with. Municipal Codes 12.40.040 and 12.40.095, both .~ referencing duty lto ~ maintain trees. .. If homeowners and developers determin~that trees will not be used in the - landscaping, then· requiring ~e' developer to provide tr~es elsewher~ '(i.e.: a city park) would still increasb the tree canopy in the community.' This - , type of mitigation, is .used extensively in other 'communities With these -- types of landscape requirementsi-." " 3. ..-The City's "urban forester developed a comprehensive tre~_li~t. " ' I~efore his depa.rtbre. That tre~ list should 'be made 'available t° the ,general public-in a format, that. is '(~3i~ducive to use.. bY landscapers, lan.dscape architects and 'developers. However, in the Plan check phase '.' of development,.-it is incum.bent upon .the. city to determine that some trees may be inappropriate due to developing species issues. For instance, Fireblight is currently.attacking-FlOwering Peai'. species throughout the- valley. However, we contin~je to allow this tree to be.planted, knowing.that there is a goo~l, chance it will not live .through-the first Year and that it is 'infecting .mature trees. Because we do not have an urban forester at this . ,'. time, plan checkers must.be, traine, d in species characteriStics to develop a ,. sustainable urban forest.in Bakersfield. , - , - We hope'that these concerns lead t_o the ~:Jr~tinuati0n of an. increasing canopy in ... our.city. We look forward to work!ng With yo.u on the implemenation of this.new standard. " Executive Director .'Certified Arborist #WE-71 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT MEETING DATE: September 28, 2005 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar Hearings ITEM: ~ .o... TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ~ApPROV ~ FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE: September 23, 2005 CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Hearincj_ to consider Resolution ordering the vacation of 'O" Street between Truxtun Avenue and 17= Street. (Ward 2) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends referral to Planning and Development Committee. BACKGROUND: On June 24, 2004 the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) issued a Solicitation for Offers for office space in Bakersfield, to locate the U.S. District Courts (including Magistrate, Probation, and Pretrial) and U.S. Marshals Service. The GSA would like to lease approximately 30,000 square feet of space with secured parking spaces to facilitate a Federal Courthouse. TACT Development LLC has submitted one project proposal to GSA to construct the facility, which would require vacation of a street and alley. However, the vacation of this street and alley will be contingent upon the General Services Administration (GSA) awarding the contract to TACT Development for the development of the Federal Courthouse project. The vacation request has been protested by neighboring property owners. It is our policy not to approve vacations when there is a protest. Because notice of this public hearing has been duly advertised and posted as required by law, staff recommends the hearing go forward as planned. However, due to new GSA project requirements and impacted property owners protests staff is recommending referral to the Planning and Development Committee. September 23, 2005, 11:35AM S:~,dmin Rpts~.00~O st vacation Admin(2) 092805.doc ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT MEIEI-ING DATE: September 28, 2005 I AGENDA SECTION: Consent ITEM: TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE: September 20, 2005 CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Planning, development and funding of community and regional parks, bike paths and trails RECOMMENDATION: Refer to Planning and Development Committee BACKGROUND: At the September 12th Planning and Development Committee, in response to public comments made by Mr. Bruce Freeman regarding park development fees and credits, Councilmember Couch requested that the subject of developing strategies for the planning, development and funding of community and regional parks, bike paths and trails be referred to the Planning and Development Committee for discussion and recommendation back to the City Council. The review and discussion would involve other agencies that provide parks in the Metro area including Kern County and North of the River Recreation and Parks Distdct and include newly developing areas, redevelopment area projects such as the Mill Creek project and the possibility of developing connections to the Kern River Parkway and bike path from existing neighborhoods. The following documents pertain to the: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMM. meeting of Monday, October 10, 2005 at 1:00 PM. FORWARD .................................................................... INTROOUC'rION .............................................. THE SEVEN MEASURES OF AN Excn ~ niT CITY PARK SYSTEM 1. A clear expression of purpose ..................... 2. Ongoing planning and community involvement ................................. 27 3. Sufficient assets in land, staffing, and equipment to meet the system's goals ......... 2o 4. Equitable access ......................................................... 23 5. User satisfaction ......................................................... 26 6. Safety from physical hazards and crime. ...................................... 28 7. Benefits for the city beyond the boundaries of the parks .......................... CONCLUSION ................................................................. 32 APPENDICES ................................................................. THE EXCELLENT CITY PARK SYSTEM · 3 The Seven Measures of an Excellent City Park System Park systems do not just 'happen.' W'fld areas don't automatically protect them- selves from development, outmoded water- :'.. '~:::. f~onta don't spontaneously sprout flowers and promenades, and flat ground doesn't i ¥.?,~:/~::::~ ~ . morph into ballfidds. Even trees and flora :.::!Si:i':~':'~i'~'lliil~'~; m' don't instinctively grow -- at least not :il ? '~i~ i"i':m ':" .... The dtizemy must dearly set forth in writing the purpose of the park system and a mandate for the park department The '!.':i:51 .. department must then use that mandate as '::i--i:'i/ a springboard for its mission statement . ' i~,.... and the definition of its core senhce~ Most .:' big-city park agendes have a legislative '!. :.? firll mandate and a mission statement, but "?:':i~.: ~ about 20 percent of them have not for- to develop this definition and to periodi- .';/Illli'~.~':,'~,'li i:~ i .... cally check whether it is being followed : ;:-' ~ can lead to departmental drift due to polit- '5~- :? iiiS.11~'flrli'~l'~i~ I~ I . . ~ plan . On the other hand, having a strong con .... . ....... ~.. '-:.-."~- "personal d~le~meet.'lad plal,. ....... .:-: :. ........ off pressures to drop activities or pick up "Tho final elmtl~t i~ "bldi~etor$ of 8L__"~___,, ger ea~ll' inappropriate tasks, indicators bave beea adopted, ~l infofmett~ fe~ tllena For instance, in Chicago in the late ~ally celleeted and e~alnated.. Il a ~ltegy is net ~ng,'}. 1980s, when newspaper exposes revealed .... ::~..: ..... ::.. -.; .. -:.~....',:,: .. t.. :,:.: '... .... .... or e!iminatd.;...:~-,.) .: 2 .:.:. ' '::. , .:~:'.. ;.' :v.-. ::..< ,- massive waste and malfeasance within the :. fat tll0~ IMatalati00: ~ I1s11; $11~IM I~j~r~ Chicago Vis. ct. Ma ,: mchard M. Daley brought in a new director, Forrest ~ ~1~, U ~t~; r~P. ~~.'/.'. "' Claypool, to dean house. Under his phi- ..... .:-,,---:.-:.-;:: - ~: '-..:--.: --:: ...... :-'..- losophy that eveiy organization can do only a few thing~s really well, Claypool was shocked to discover that the Chicago Park THE EXCELLENT CITY PARK SYSTEM ~s 1 5 , District had 13 divisions, only one of mandate. Less than half of big-city agendes K £ ¥ 11 U E $ ? I 0 N $ which was called 'Parks.' Going back to publish an annual report -- and most of .:-~. ?~?:.77:~ i?...:; ~ ?-3'::' · ...., ~.,. ,.:;:?.:¥,:z::q:..~.~.,:..,~c~:¥..,,~ c,~z: the agency's mission statement, he priva- the reports provide 'soft' concepts and · ::. ,,; ~ ~:!~i~:,~ii!~ Ozed much of the work aowns~,d to six images rather than precise information, .':i::'i~':~'l,.~~ divisions, and decentralized. Within less such as number of activities held, number · :::?millli!! I. Ui~.??:::(?:~i~ than a decade, the Park District was widely of people served, and other spedfic out- %. I noticed for its excellence comes and measurable benefits. Few agen- "?'" Also, to inform the public the depart- des give a comprehensiw budgetary report, "":..: merit should regularly publish an annual and fewer still look honestly at challenges · ! ';. ' 'i ..,,:'.~' report summarizing its system and pro- that weren't adequately met and how they '*: ~" grams and showing how well it full. ed its could be better tackled in the future. 16 · THE EXCELLENT CITY PARK SYSTEM ]'o be suco,~ful, a dty park system needs a 2001 in Nashville, Tenn., when Mayor Bill master plan. Purcell initiated a year-long parka and green- A plan ia more than an °intenfiom' It is a ways process, the first such dtywide conver- document built upon a process, demonstrat- sation in the 100-year history of its parks. lng a path of achievement, and expresaing a Upon completion, resident support had final outcome. 'I~e department's master been so solidified that the dty council plan should be subatantiated thoroughly, enthusiastically funded a $35-million capi- reviewed regularly, and updated every five tal spending plan, the largest Nashville park years. The agency should have a robust, for- appropriation ever. malized comm~lity inv~alvenlent mecha- Not every dty will always have a mayor nism -- which means more than posting who cares strongly about parks, but eve_n7 the document on a web page and hoping for park agency should have a formalized citi- feedback. The ideal master plan should zen advisory board with which it meets reg- have, at the least, the following elements: ularly. (See Appendix II.) Its members should · an inventory of natural, recreational, be appointed by the mayor or the dty coun- 0n $u1115~$ [inll~d I~¥ al historical and cultural resources cil, its sessions should be open to the public Carln~, h,,nd~la al · a needs analysis and its role should be to provide the agency tim giro em~l~/m ll~ · an analysia of connectivity and gap~ with constructive crifidsm, helpful advocac~ al~ {e w~t ~ $u¢# r~l~ · an analysis of the agency's ability to user feedback, and fresh planning ideas. I, alag'la aa I~tl~ carry out its mandate While most park agendes have plans, too ~ha caml~laatinn al I~lanain~ · an implementation strategy (with often they never reach fi'uition because key aasl I~a~igil~allaa #elps mab dates}, induding a description of other elements are trumped by other agendes or lin S~a~l~ s~am one al park and recreation providers' roles private interests. Visions of a new waterfront ~a~ ~ · a budget for both capital and operating · a mechanism for annual evaluation of the plan Although five yeats may seem a short lifespan for a plan, it is startling to realize how rapidly urban circumstances change. In TPL's survey, about two-third of agencies were operating on out-of-date master plans and some were relying on plans formulated 10, 15 or more years ago -- back in the days before the rise of computers and geographic information systems, not to mention dog parka, mountain bikes, ultimate frisbee. girls' soccer leagues, skateboard courses and cancer survivor gardens, among other inno- vations. (See Append/x L) The ability of good planning to build community support was demonstrated in THE EXCELLENT CITY PA R'K SYSTEM · 17 park may be for naught if the transportation nomic development, education and health, department ha~ its own desigm on the same among other factors. Ideally the agendea parcel. Any park plan (and its implementa- will reach agreement; if not, the issue should tion strategy) should be coordinated with go to the mayor or city council for resolu- plans for neighborhoods, housing, tourism, tion ~ with plenty of public involwanent transportation, water management, eco- and support from pro-park advocates. I 8 · T H E E XC E L L E NT C I TY P A R K S YST E M As confirmation of its involvement with the community, the department should have formal relationships with non-profit comer- vation and service-pro~der organizations. These arrangements may or may not involv~ the exchange of money, but they should be explicitly written down and signed, with dear expectations, accountability and a time limit which requires regular renewal. Having formal relationships not only enables a higher level of service through public-pti- vate partnership, it al~o provides the agency if and when that ia needed. F'mally, no dry can have a truly great park system without a strong network of park 'Mends' groups -- private organizations that se~ as both sup]:x~rte~ and watc. hdog~i of the depa:b.ent. Ideall]~ a dty will have one or two organizafiona with a full city- wide orientation, assuring that the aystem aa a whole is well run and succem_ ful, and also scores of groUps that focus on an individual park and its surrounding neighborhood -- concentrating on everything fi'om deanli- ness, safety and quality to programming, KEY QUESTIONS THE EXCELLENT CITY PARK SYSTEM ~bviously, a park system requires a land (constructed pad~ that are mowed or regu- base. But the size of that base is not an lady cleaned up) than natural landscapes immutable numbe~., big-city systems range (those which are left alone, except for the in size from almost 20 percent of a city's occasional trail), it is valuable to know the area down to 2.5 percent, and from more at, age split between these two categories. than 45 acres per 1000 residents to just The TPL surety reveals a large range: some over 3 acres po: 1000. While the~e is no urban park agendes have 100 percent ordained 'optimum' size, a dts/s system designed lands and no natural properties at should be large enough to meet the goals all, while others have as little as 10 percent outlined in the agency's master plan. (S~ designed and 90 percent natural. Aj~ndi~s III and/~.) Newer systems in younger dries are gen- Despite the truism 'If you don't mea- emily growing much faster than older sur~ ~ can't manage/many dries do not tems in mature, non-expanding dti~ but it have accurate figures on their system~ It is is not tree that older dries cannot increase c~itical that every agency know the extent of the size of their park systems. In the past its natural and historical resources m land, years the amount of parkland in Denver flora, buildings, am~ork- waterways, paths, and Seattle grew by more than 44 percent roads, and much more -- and havt a plan each. Conversely, some 'new dries' hav~ I1~1~ ~r~lad Pi~ tam Pla to manage them sustainably. It is important been failing behind in the effort to add ~aasisla al I1~ aw al ~ to publish these numbers an~.aily to track parkland -- Colorado Springs' system ~ II~ ~1~ la~ CI~i~o Rl~r the growth (or shrinkage) of the system by 185 percent between 1970 and 2002, IS Cl~10~s I~-P~ Cldm- over time. Ideally, the agency should be but the city itself grew in area by 206 per- ~ ~mmaai~. AllI~# able to place a financial value on its hold- cent dining the same tim~- IS~I Is ~l~sl~, I1~ gl~/is ings and should have a plan to pay for Even cities which a~ considered 'all paw~ll~ mmmlll~l la replacing eve~ structure in the system, buik out' can use redevelopment to eai~lal I~ p~k ~ mi Because it is so much mom expensive to inc~ase parkland. Outmoded ~_cilities like milq II gg~si~Is la III. create and operate 'designed' landscapes dosed shipyards, underutilized rail depot~, abandoned factories, decommissioned mili- ~ . ~ tary bases and fired landfills can be con- ~r~.] ~ vetted to pad~. Sunken highways and ~ ~ ~ railroad tracks can be decked over with parkland. Denver even depaved its old air- and create the dty's largest park In New York, the Depa~ment of Parks and gecreation collaborated with the Department of Transportation to convert 2,008 asphalt tr~lic ~angles and paved- medians into 'gn~,enstmets' -- pocket parks and tree-lined malls that are then main- mined by community residents and busi- 20 m THE EXCELLENT .CITY PARK SYSTEM nesspe~ons. In other dties, school systems In addition to land, the park and recre- and park departments are breaking down ation department needs sufficient public historic bureaucratic ban'ie~ and signing revenue for land management and pro- joint use agreement~ to make schoolyard grams. This entails both an adequate oper- fields available for neighborhood use after ating budget and a regular infusion of school hour~, capital funds for major consm~ction and THE EXCELLENT CITY PARK SYSTEM ~' 21 this should be considered a minimum. KEY QUESTIONS Moreover, there should be an effeclive; .. complementary private fundraising effort -- "l Wl~t'm ~...a~..~-.~ .!~ll: one that serves not only signature parks but . ~i!i'? also the whole sisera. Although private efforts should never be designed to let the '-.? i'f' · <~Wlml be valuable in undertaking monumental ".~--.~,.~'. ~: ..... .~;.':~ ¥.~ projects or in raising work to levels of :. :i mWlml beauty and extravagance that government .. ?i.:: on its own can not afford. Private cam- :i' "~ generosity of corporations, foundations, .:. and wealthy individuals which otherwise .-J:' .e~ would not contribute to government agen- - '.'...e Fxcellent park departments not only ".~ii;)~!:i Ilillil/' receive adequate funding, but also spend · Hew their money wisely and commit themselves ":":"" to effective stewardship. Outstanding stew- natural resources professionals to properly ,. ...- ~'~i':~ ~-~::; e., · ,~alm ovemee the system and manage the work of · Is pruners, mowers, and other laborers. More- !:'~ over, since a system rarely has enough paid 'mi''mmPI staffto accomplish all its goals, the excel- "' ~ flSSal !f~.., .~ lent department has a high-visibility, dti- ~11~:'__ ...... zen-fxiendiy marketing program whereby -'".' lalill members of the public can understand the ~1i~ stewardship of the system and become repairs and land acquisition. A detailed sur- their expenditures acctwately and be able to vey of the 55 biggest cities showed that, in report them to the public usefully and fiscal year 2000, the 'adjusted park budget' understandably. Most agencies have the raw -- the amount spent by each city on parks information but too many of them do not operations and capital, minus everything provide it; numbers are either difficult for spent on such big-ticket items as zoos, muse- politicians, reporters and the general public urns, aquariums or planetariums -- came to to get hold of, or the statistics are put forth an average of $80 per resident. {S~ ~/x incomprehensibly. V.) While that figure is probably not high enough ~ considering that every system is millions or billions of dollars behind its needs -- it is certain that, in current dollars, 22 · THE EXCELLENT CITY PARK SYSTEM The excellent ci~ park system is accessible · '"-' ASSURING OPPORTUNITY FOR LOW-INCOME to ev~yone regardless of residence, ph~ical abilities or finandal resources. Parks should ' · 'OEPAR1~ OF be easily reachable from every neighbor- · .' '.'. ~Wki'~'i~!,,i.~el!.illat we .111 not hood, usable by the handicapped and chal- . lenged, and available to low-income ' i 'TIIfl~i.'~~ ohlisJ0~ ...... POllialll~ residents. Most dries hav~ one or more very ~ unspoiled .natural are~ By virtue of topog- 'raphy- mountain, wetland, canyon, stream valley -- they are not, of course, . equidistant from. all city residents. But . grounds, neighborhood paxks, ballfields, linear greenways -- should be sited in such · a way that every neighborhood and every resident is equitabty sen,ed. Preferably, people and parks are no far- ther than 10 minutes apart by foot in dense are~ o~ ~0 rain-res ap~ by biq~e in spread-out sections. Moreove~ it is not enough to measure access purely from a map; planners must take into account such significant physical barriers as uncrossable highways, stre~m.~ and railroad corridors, or for acceptable distance shouldn't be based ...~ ~1~ on an id~.ed healthy adult, but rathe~ on .... Unfortunately, most cities do not provide this kind of park equity. Los Angeles has middle but precious little in the crowded south-central section. New York has vast acreage in Staten Island and the Bronx but a dearth of greenspace in Brooklyn. And most cities haven't accurately analyzed which of their residents are far from parks. Cities should also assure park access by a wide range of challenged persons, induding the elderly, infirm, blind and those con- THE EXCELLENT . CITY P A I~ K SYSTEM ~ 23 fined to wheelchaim. This indudes appro- While it is acceptable to charge appropriate pilate surfacing materials, ramps, signs and fees for some park fadlifies and programs, handicapped parking. The best way of agendes should consciously plan for the achieving this goal is through the creation approximately 20 percent of residents who of a Disability Advisory Committee which cannot afford such fees, utilizing such alter- meets regularly. (See Appendix VII.) natives as scholarships, fee-free hours, fee- Fmally, agendes must assme equitable· fi~e days, or sweat-equity voluntee~ work access for those who can't pay full price (See Append/x VIII.) .': '~? :;- -;~.-5' ~,? -' ;:~'~n,~i~~,~ i,"~' .m,.' ........ ~'~' i~"'"'~; 7."' r-.~"" ~'~ ~# ~ ~':-~ c,...m.; ,~.- ~* .f'.,, ~ .Iai. I, · ' ,.....~, ~. -","~:.-.,~.. ,~,-',~, ~.~# .,!',~i~.i ,mmd'equiPmnl, and uiug diffm~d-lutursd ~Url~ 1~ mist m brim ami mtti-"l ~1~. 'i'lm ~ ~1 i~ t. h.lp · ~ :'"':. "..~ ." ::'-' :..'!~-::','~-.i.:."~;~::,' ':.' ~'.~..;? ?.'. :":.'::',.': 7!'!:?;:!:':::~'~?.:': 24 · TRE EXCELLENT CiTY PARK S Y $ T E ~ ,-':.::.a:_?_ ~l ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ,: ~:::~ pie m .... '~ ~ ~ ~ l ..? .:/:~ :=:::all~l''''' ";" ~ us~ =~d~ mppm, Oenm pa~ ~annm ~n'~d~ m mide~. ~ ~ ~ll a~ ef . '"¥" ~ mom ~ ~ ~IbMo blocU ~ a pa~ -- a~ ~ ~ M~ffi ~ pbn m hi~, pfl~ I :': :.' ..... - .' . .: :. ,.>..: ~,':,:,-, ,-:- ~':;~'-: T.'?~t:~:~:~:';&:.~?S....'~"~ ~"' ...~',:. '~.', " ... ', ' ' ' .',' '. :; ..' -" ~/'" ::'~' ':w,' .' ~;: :' ~, ~ '.'-'~ :~ ::':'.'. ':' =':-."'.:.:'.? .:~ ':~:~-' ~:' :~:~,~?¥~ ~'~?~:'::?~:~?:~:'~'?',~':' ~.?.'x':.,~:,-~.' '~ '' . '. . '. . ' - '., ' · .~..~ T H E ' E X c E L L E N T C i T Y P A R R S Y S T E t~ I, 2 5 I I I By definition, the outstanding city park sys- instance, the transportation department, rem is well used. Having high usership is the school system or the welfare depart- the ultimate validation that it is attractive merit, all of which can make a strong fac- and that it meets people's needs. High mai case justifying their budget requests. attendance also increases safety because of As for satisfaction, most agencies rely on more 'eyes on the park.' informal feedback such as letters of corn- Knowing the level of park use requires plaint or messages relayed back by the measuring it, not only for an estimate of a staff. This is unbalanced and ineffective, gross total but also to know us~s by Iota- and does not provide the agency with dear tion, by time of day, by activity and by direction. It therefore tends to result in a demographics. And finding out the satisfac- park system that meets the e. ff~ciency needs tion level requires asking questions -- not only of users but of non-users as well. Fur- K I: ¥ Q U I: $ T 10 # $ thermore, to spot trends, these efforts must be carried out on a recurring, sdentific . basis. '5? ' The Trust for Public Land found that an ~.~. overwhelming number of city park agencies are unaware of their total usership. Not having this number severely reduces an .i.· 18 I agency's ability to budget and to effectively rainy/aa~ ha~py- ~m~ ~m~ request funding from the dty coundl. Most ~a~m $anm~m ~m? departments can track their paying users -- 0r ~hdr Immnb? Or thdr golfers playing rounds, swimmers using ndghbors whe never go inlo pools, teams renting fields. But this is only the link? Could ibm park bm a tiny fraction of the tree total. The lack of of the provider rather than the comfort mini bdlel? basic information is in stark contrast to, for needs of the user. (Most infamously, many agencies 'solve' the problem of dirty bath- g rooms not by cleaning but by wamanently ~ Naturally, it is not po~ible to accurately ,:~ ~ count all passive usem of a s~tem. How- ever, oblation, selective counm and ~xapolafiom -- reputed over time -- can provide meaningful data. Chicago takes aer- ial photos of large events and then us~ a grid to count participan~ The city also up eleet~onic ¢ounter~ to measure the num- ber of mere pa.~in§ a given point. 26 ~ THE EXCELLENT CITY PARK SYSTEM '.' FORT WORTH; TEXAS, DEPRRTMENT OF PRR~ AND COIgalJNIl~ -Kam~ ym~ , ...: .~- ,.:. ~.~ ~f .~.~;::;:~-: . ~i~- ~ ~~ ':;. ~.:.~.'~'~:-~...- ~-':."','.'.' :~'" ~ :~ :~." :'."'..' :~"::::'? i'~ "-" ~':'.=.;"'~ .':':"~ THE EXCELLENT CITY PARK SYSTEM I ]'o be successful, a city park system should surveyed agendes currently collect this data be safe, free both of crime and of unreason- and, of those that do, most have no strategy able physical hazards -- from sidewalk pot- tO use the information.(Se~ Append/x IX.) holes to rouen branches overhead. Park Another valuable piece of information is departments should have mechanisms to the milo of male to female users in each avoid and eliminate physical hazards as park since a low rate of female users is a well as ways for citizens to easily report very strong indication of a park which feels problems, unsafe. Crime, of course, is dependent on a large number of factors that are beyond the reach It E ¥ I1 I1 E $ ? I 0 # $ of the park and recreation department -- poverty, drag and alcohol use, population · demographics, lack of stabilizing neighbor- hood institutions. But there are other fac- tom ~ park location, park design, presence of uniformed personnel, presence of park amenities, availability of youth program- ming -- over which the department has some control, tlltimately the greatest deter- ' :mi rent is the presence of large numbem of Park visitors are also reassured if they see uniformed employees. Even if the number of actual police or rangers is quite small and their rounds infrequent, the perception of order and agency responsibility can be · extended simply by dressing all park work- ers and outdoor maintenance staff in uni- form. Similar~, well-nm youth recreation pro- grams have been shown to decrease delin- quency and vandalism. The excellent park system takes it even farther by tracking y~uth crime by neighborhood over time. Having hard numbers is the only way to know if targeted programs are having suc- Basic to any safety strategy is the accu- rate, regular collection of crime data in parks and, preferably, near parks, since parks and their surrounding neighborhoods are interrdated. Only about half the 28 · THE EXCELLENT CITY PARK SYSTEM · A UNIFORMED PRESENCE IN THE Tim uninm et trade'Security is dividd late two group: Umse cities with amd ~. adnntap' d Um tiltef is thai ladt'raiigifl tend te lm mil knawled~!!.md'S' .. iamms ami-ted te b~-a visiter sevin tilde. 1lid ~dvadage of tim fenne~ is mere aUeellea t '- nhmnn~k, rn.. d.~ RiO, a.d kelf u.ti.g the r/dm~ .me' "dim altn' U mlpi~ showed litul n, imhal acli~il~ ~ 3 mi 7 a.m:). 11wy nd around bY a. lemki!.,'~ M'! · Imp .umbra .t pa~t nm. SU Mt,ale ~n tn dimlm mis ~ qua. litl.m!mum:?!;~!~ c.,ebraU°"s in parks, and it Us mcedlv Imgun canduding a mo.Udy nmUng t" implement dimctml DSb~l shategies te target criminal acUvtty that may af.d bolb..aPark.aml Um fact that aboul one eld of five calls is i~ rulmau te criminal activilv}, bid Umy mudmly THE EXCELLENT CITY PARK SYSTEM · 29 ".;" HELPING YOUNG PEOPLE STAY ' '?'~nU PARKB AND RECREAnON :,,~ ~ 1~ ~ ~m lin h~ a~ R~u D~ I~md ~m ~ .11~ 'Tml~ hel, Tml~ 3 0 ~, T H E E X C E L L E N T C i T Y 1) A R K S Y S T E M ~he value of a park system extends beyond media, the tourism and real estate indus- the boundaries of the parka themselves. In tries, and even the mayor's office at budget g l! ¥ I10 Ii $ T I 0 N $ fact, the excellent dty park system is a form time. Unfortunately, few agendes maintain -:.,! of natural infrastructure that provides many this economic database. .;:,-:~ goods for the dry as a whole: ·deaner air, as trees and vegetation filter out pollutants by day and produce '~<" :~ ? MEt URI#11 PROPEI · cleaner water, as roots trap silt and I~1~'" contaminants before they flow into 111 ~ hdl~;ill ~ streams, rivm'a and lakes; · reduced health costs fzom sedentary F~r ~g~ syndromes such as obesity and diabetes, . bldiS~li~: thanka to walking and nmninR trail~ sports fields, recreation centers, bike- ~ §o~f COUr~, and other opportllni- :'"'[.ld~.. ~'" "pld[.~'" ' '~" .bi...g~/~. I ..h~..!." ..... "': ')"'~'_ -~..--;.:-:; :-<-.. '~,~ sklthlB,~ ~ ties for physical fitness; illgii' · improved learning opportunities fxom ' ~1~ Ilei~.~,~.~..~ ows. wetlands and even recovering celdd ~ .~_!~q~ll'~ ~ brownfields and greyfields (previously 1811 ilia ii lured the rmle used tracts); pr0pal · increased urban tourism based on attractive, successful parks, with result- I~:" ' ing increased commerce and sales tax revenue.; ' · increased business vitality based on I~ldl quality parks; and Im~ali~ ....... · natural beauty and respite f~m traffic '.'~i.i'. erty value of residences up to a radius of ............. about two-fifths of a mile. (Of course, trou .......... .: ....... bled parks can have the opposite restdt.) The $15 .... tl~ Uts mat' ........ ~l l~ ~!1~' ':'" financial data (or contracts with a univemity /;t~l~n '/JY Bltl or other entity) in order to know which of O~l~ off/'a~l ~ ~lb'w~o~,~ ..... its pazks are positively impacting the sur- ~.,/#dlJ.ISO/~. t~ ~ rounding neighborhood. It also informs the ' :.. · ...... .. ': .... : THE EXCELLENT CITY PARK SYSTEM · 31 I I City parks do not exist in a vacuum_ Evo3r betxveen the private space of homes and All ADMIRABLE LEVEL OF STEWARDSHIP.': .: the fully public space of parks, plazas, PM il oil tnMbar-- ltad, for Public Land envisions park systems Fg Iz0oll~ Il fllr~afllllliP..il ~ not inolfln o which enrich dries, and dtiea which nourish I~o~oiz Pa~ aid Rno~lti°! Dqla~nl i~ad~ witil some of the excellent practices essential to . ~ta ~fll l~l,off and all'inql . .... aty park mania.mom hopes to both ." t a benchmark (an avo-age standard that has ~ h0d~L II ~i~intoino~a la~ ~ ~i~ .... . ...... · been achieved by the bis cities) and a high- 41 to~t~, h0flinll~ral~: a~.~l~ ~llil~.t0 level goal (some of the best models that 0in 0nd ~ nl~no~lnot. have been established thus far). ' m0~ ~ ~11~Oto~ ~ to the ongoing evolution of city parks. We seek to expand the ~ numbe~ of dries measured as wall as explore additional park systems. We believe that .:.i'~'~m~,n[. the combination of hard data and the heartfelt motivation of ~e~ ~ re'alm pa~k dh'e~on and dtizen advo- past eflefls have cotes will lead to a renewed appre- :~i i~:~'I Ganl~, lira itt~'CU~J:'g~n~ ciation of the importance of city parks by mayom, dty ~oundls, business leaders 'f :?i!';)!:'~!?i' iI~lflr.'Tl~ i0aall~im and the population as a whole. Such appm- fundS' On ~iudi''ldtlm Ilafts dopadmeai,~m~ a the full mban revitalization program. - Fillip, Phno°Ll Paltts and Reefeati0a DePartmnot bas a To r~ceh, v ~fd~iom~ i,.j~-m~i~m or m ~r~ ketlng'pfegram, witk a staff 0f thru and a budget 0f.$150~000.. ~ ~ or best praai~ p~.~ contact ually puts forth infennatioe about the r/stem to tim Peter Harmk The Imml il in Ilo ,.tcamo: la 2001 m'c~ .. .... ~ 'Z'rust for ,Pu~Z~ Z~ all in, compf~ national dndy that mno~rnd..h~ ~!!. 660 P~nnsTh/ania Apt $.£. dolivlr g°vemment m'vicno'tn'loCal ¢dMal, alld lbo Pllonoix 202'543-7552 Cont~ Dale I. at~, ,ll~tl~nf Diregfor, Peter. harnik @tpl.ovg Ptrl~ tnd R~t~iott, ~0 W. W~ldtt~a $t., 32 · THE EXCELLENT CITY PARK SYSTEM APPENDIX III ACRES OF PARKLAND IN THE CITY, PER 1000 RESIDENTS ((:lido Grouped I~ Populadon DemitT) CITY POPULA110N AIJ. PARIO.ANO® AC~ES ~ (AC~) 1009 PiRSONS High Pepldalie. Oees~ C~i# 572,000 7,576 13.2 Washinstor~ D.C. ,~ ............. ~ Boston 589,000 . 5,451 9.3 l~s Anl~eles 3,695,000 30,134 Philadelphia 1,518,000 10,621 7.0 New yodr, 8,008,000 36,646 4.6 · ~ 362,000 1,118 3.1 ~e, Hilb 0ensity Cities 6.0 Mediam-Hilh Pop-illi~l Olesit~ Ciies Portland, Om_ 52_9,000 12,959 24.5 Dall~s 1,189,000 21,670 18.2 Las Vegas 478,000 5,416 ~ . 11_3 Seatge 563,000 6,024 10.7 Sacramento 407,000 3,694 9.1 'lb]edo 314,000 2,206 7.0 Cleveland 478,000 2,884 6.0 Fresno 428,000 1,323 3.1 Atmrale, Ilediam-Hilh Oemit~! Cities 12.2 Mediam-4.ow Popalation Oemity Cities Albuque~tue 449,000 17,746 39.5 Phoenix 1,321,000 36,944 28.0 ......................................................... 7b~,~ ................... miss ~5.o ~l~b~ ~1,~ 8,494 11.9 Ho~on 1,9~,~ ~,~2 10.9 ~ 416,~ 3,~5 7.8 'lh~n 487,~ 3,175 6.5 A~W, Mldi,~ ee~ C~. 16.1 O~o~ ~ 5~,~ 14,~4 29.0 -. .......... .,- ~ x~,~,~ ~;..,....~..: ..??.-~, :.:? ~..:.'- Z~ ~r~:~T:~ ::: '~ ':"': ?, ~;~:~ ~.~ :~;:I~;~ ~;?:q~;:~'.~ ~? ':. Vi~a ~ 425,~0 , ~,~8 26.5 Honoiffi~Ho~lffiu ~ 876,~ 17,538 20.0 *~ '~ ~' ~dud~ ~ p~ ~d p~ o~ ~ m~ ~, m~H~ ~te ~ f~ ~ ~ ~e ~d~ of ~ ~. THE EXCELLENT CITY PARK SYSTEM I 3 7 APPENDIX IV PERCENT OF CITY LAND AREA DEVOTED TO PARKS (odes trouped ~ ropuladon Dens~) CITY CITY AREA (ACRES) ALL pARXLANO PARKLANO A$ I!1 CITY (ACRId)* PERCENT OF CITY AREA 39,297 7,576 19.3 Bc)~on 30,992 5,451 17.6 .'.i'". ~ .... ~:~:~:;~¥~,i~:~'~-:L~''';,~£~1'~:~:~:;'~::~:-' ~"~:';~;~-"~'~:~'"~"~'~" ...... '~ Phil~rlelphia 86,456 10,621 12.3 O=id:~nd 35,875 3,822 10.7 L~n8 ~ 32,281 2,792 8.6 kti:~ml 2.2,830 1,138 5.0 Av~lll, Hilll Oemily Cittls 13.1'% Mediam-Hilh PopMMi~ Oensit,/Cihs Portland, Om_ 85,964 12,959 15.1 Seaffie 53,677 6,024 11.:2 St. L~uis 39,630 3,385 8.5 ~ V~ 72,514 5,416 7.5 ~ 88,810 5,8~ 6.6 ~ 62,1~ 3,694 5.9 '1~1~ 51,597 ~206 F~o 66,791 1,3~ 2.0 A~, ~~ O~ C~m 8.~ ~uq~ ~5,6~ 17,746 15.4 Ph~ ~3,~ 36,~ ~!o~ Spd~ U8,874 10,1~ 8.5 ......................... ~.,~ ~ ..... ~,.,:, · ;~:,=-a~~- ~.:~:~- ~:~:;~:%%~L~!~:~.~T :' ~:~ ~ ~m~o 260,832 16,~3 6.~ '1~ U6,891 7,110 . 6.1 ~~n 246,4~ 14,1~ 5.8 ~n Wo~ 187,~ 10,554 5.6 '1~ ~,720 3,~8 4.8 Atl~n~ ~,316 3,~5 3.8 'l~n 124,5~ 3,175 V~a ~ 158,~3 ~,~8 7.1 ~M~ 337~80 16,472 4.9 O~o~ O~ 388,463 14,~4 3.8 38 e THE EXCELLENT CITY PARK SYSTEM